I matched every car to every car, auto vs manual. Some cars do not match, usually, but not always, because they are auto only, especially in the prestige area.

Then I filtered according to the definitions I used, e.g. year of manufacture, 5 speed manual vs 4&5 speed auto, always on a car to car basis, so every car was compared to every car manual vs auto.

Now the weakness was that it is not weighted by sales, but that is where the median comes in. The very top, prestige cars have very small volumes, the differences between their gearboxes may be small, but for the average car, which is the large volume area, the difference is significant.

So if you are rich the difference is probabaly small, for the rest of us, learn to drive properly and get a manual.

All data courtesy of the Australian Govt.

Latest 2007 data: Matching all auto and manual vehicles, model for model (type, engine, etc) and comparing manual vs Auto:
Average (mean) Ltrs/100km: Manual 9.496, Auto: 9.894, Diff: 3.8%

The median difference is a much higher 6.7%!

Note: now they only give one number a combined cycle, instead of the old highway, metro consumptation rates they gave before.

Going back into the archives and using the pre 2004 data we have:

Highway cycle: 1999 3.2%, 2000 2% 2001 5.6%, 2002 4.8%, 2003 4.8%
Metro cycle: 1999 3%, 2000 3.5% 2001 2.9%, 2002 5%, 2003 5%
All percentages worse than manual of course.

Note that ‘modern technolois not actually going anywhere on this.

It gets worse, if we compare the average 5 speed manual cars vs matching 4&5 speed autos then the difference is (for 2007 cars) a whopping 6%.

You really canna defy the lays of physics.

Of yes their are sopme trick auto gearboxes (7, 8 speed, etc) that may be similar in efficiency, but they cost a lot more, use up more resources, are heavier and require as much computer power as the average PC to work ..and are much less reliable than the old 3-4 speeders or manuals (ref the Lemmon Guide to cars) and cost a fortune to fix.

Basicaly rubbish vs a decent 5 or even 6 speeder manual.

I do this for two reasons - one it enables me to go over gutters and various other obstacles I would be scared to tackle on a “road bike”, two it means that I don’t get my wheels caught in tram tracks (a uniquely Melbourne danger).

Agree with you on the single gear thing though.

Don’t get too excited about diesels. They may be better for the environment from a CO2 perspective, but in terms of other emissions they’re appalling, which is why they’re so heavily restricted in the USA.

Fixing the emissions also tends to push up fuel consumption.

Robert that may have been true in the past, but its not true now. Volkswagen will introduce a “50 state diesel” this (northern) summer that meets California’s ultra-strict LEV2 standard.

The engine produces the same power and torque as the Australian spec engine, and Wired says it returns 60mpg US on the highway. That’s 3.92L/100km, better than a Prius for a considerably bigger car.

From Green Car Congress 24.04.2008:
VW Introduces Production Version of BlueTDI Engine

A key aspect in the development of the BlueTDI (2.0 liter engine displacement, 103 kW/140 PS, 320 Nm) was the reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx); the US BIN5 / CA LEV2 standards stipulate a limit of just 0.05 g/mile.

Volkswagen engineers met the requirements through a combination of internal engine modifications, some of which are unique worldwide, and implementing the maintenance-free NOx trap.

These internal engine changes include modifications to the design of the injection system of both the American and European TDI as well as the implementation of cylinder pressure sensors. This allows for a completely new type of cylinder pressure-based combustion control, which is both faster and tailored to each specific cylinder.

Also new is an optimized high-pressure injection pump. Another unique feature is the combination of a high-pressure exhaust gas recirculation system with additional low-pressure exhaust gas recirculation. This dual exhaust gas recirculation (dual circuit EGR) is an effective means of reducing nitrogen oxides in the engine. The dual circuit EGR system alone reduces engine-out NOx by up to 60%.

Outside of the engine, it is the NOx trap—connected downstream of the oxidation catalytic converter and the particle filter—that reduces nitrogen oxide to the required minimum. Implemented together, these measures reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 90%.

In the pre-RBT days, you’d see people a lot of people, literally spending two minutes trying to get the key in the driver’s dock lock, falling down, getting up again, and having finally opened the door, spending another minute or so, getting the key into the ignition…before driving off.

And lets just say, you don’t see too many cars come screaming over hills on the wrong side of the road, which again was a fairly common sight after the pubs closed back in them days.

In rapid shifting, heavy acceleration environments (ie metropolitan) they are far less efficient, basically like slipping your (manual) clutch all the time as you drive around town. Anyone who has an auto gearbox can’t drive.

That’s all either outdated or just plain wrong. A modern torque converter isn’t slipping all the time and mostly acts as a torque multiplier/reduction gear which can help keep your (narrow torque band) IC engine well within more efficient revs than your ear and your left arm can. Sitting at idle (where the vast majority of urban fuel usage goes) an automatic is just as (in)efficient as a manual, and in gentle acceleration between traffic lights, the auto will kill a manual transmission in fuel usage and service life, simply due to that torque multiplication that allows your engine to be more efficient in stop/start work and the lack of a mechanical clutch requiring replacement every 70-100,000k.

They weigh far less (aluminium, not steel) and have more gears (typically 18 vs 10).

Meh. Carbon fibre and 20 speeds right next to the desk and all of about 8kg. I could lose that in body fat - modern bicycles are astonishing. No safer than the 1960’s one though - cars still hurt when they hit you, although a lot of the really dangerous protrusions have been (forcibly) shaved off them.

Cycling in rural/regional Australia is a bit like surfing - there’s an element of fashion to it but with all these open spaces and quiet roads, it’s almost criminal not to take advantage of it. The fixie phenom - I blame bicycle couriers.

Fashion.

I dislike the road tax approach, myself, because it only tackles one side of the problem - the efficiency of the cars being driven. It does nothing to tackle the amount of driving people do. Taxing the fuel used does both.

In my experience with bicycles, the dominating factor is rolling resistance; it completely befuddles me why people ride massive mountain bikes with low-efficiency knobby tires on city streets. Oh (and with apologies to Phil of Spinopsys if he’s reading this) I fail to see the appeal of the single-speed bikes that are proliferating in the inner city at the moment.

10 speed bike in the 1960s - damn rich kids - the rest of us were content with one

Mercurius, even cheap bicycles are more fuel efficient now than the boat anchors I rode in the 60s. They weigh far less (aluminium, not steel) and have more gears (typically 18 vs 10).

(1) The latest diesel engines all reach the highest standards in emissions (otherwise they would not be sold in the EU, etc).
(2) Sorry manual transmission is still more efficient, The only thing thats gets close is the ones that do not use a torque converter, basically they are power manual boxes that use a computer to control them, but they are heavier. For torque converters lock up only applies in cruising. In rapid shifting, heavy acceleration environments (ie metropolitan) they are far less efficient, basically like slipping your (manual) clutch all the time as you drive around town. Anyone who has an auto gearbox can’t drive.
(3) At constant speeds on the flat, aerodynamics dominate energy use. When you are accelerating weight is the dominant issue.
(4) Modern cars are far too heavy, compare a modern Mini to the original. The original did (depending on model) 40+mpg (some 50+). Yet the moden one has little more interior space, despite being larger overall.

Bad design, peoples’ desire to have something ‘bigger’ and to drive like idiots but still be ’safe’. 7 airbags, come on. I’ve got a 4WD, but its a real bush basher, really used for what it is designed for. Anyone, and I mean anyone who gets one of these and only uses it in the town simply demonstrates that their IQ is less than my shoe size.

A British cybernetician came up with a better idea, instead of making cars ever more ’safe’, and thus reduces their skills ever more, he suggested putting sharp spikes on the steering wheel. Now that would concentrate the mind. Not many people would use their phones, text, watch their GPS’s, and take their eyes off the road.

unlike my friends’ commodore. When she gives me a lift I always think ‘wow you could have a party in the back there!’

A classic case of “never mind the quality, feel the width”.

It’s the only reason we still run my wife’s EL Fairmont - you can get two big children plus a baby seat back there and still have room to swing cats. AND it gets 7l/100km on the highway. We had a much newer Ford Territory for a while and it never broke 10l/100km ever. The newer twin-cam ford engines are really powerful, but they suck for fuel economy.

One point that is also not often grasped is how big a deal reducing smog levels has been. It probably prevents more premature death and ill-health than even the various bits of safety gear.